BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 350 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 02.07.2019
Date of Decision : 27.09.2023.
Gursahab Singh, aged about 56 years, son of Sh. Boota Singh, resident of 14/69, Gali No.4, Barnala Road, Ram Colony, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, having its branch office near Market Committee office at Sirsa through its authorized signatory/ Incharge.
2. HDFC Bank, having its branch office at Sangwan Chowk, Sirsa, through its Branch Manager and Principal Officer.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act
Before: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………….MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA………………..MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Vishav Kant, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present against the opposite parties (herein after referred as OPs) seeking insurance claim for the damage of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2018.
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that he is an agriculturist and is owner in possession being co-sharer in the agricultural land comprised in Khewat Nos. 215, 217 as per jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 and khewat no. 105 as per jamabandi for the year 2007-2008 situated in village Chakerian, Tehsil and District Sirsa. He is also owner in possession being co-sharer in the land comprised in Khewat No. 280, 348, 349, 350 and 351 situated in village Kalanwali, Tehsil and District Sirsa as per jamabandi for the year 2012-2013. The complainant is also owner in possession being co-sharer in the land comprised in khewat no.s 73 and 74 situated in village Salamkhera, Tehsil and District Sirsa as per jamabandi for the year 2011-2012. That there are other co-sharers in the said joint lands in all three villages and in this way complainant is owner in possession of land measuring 16½ acres as per his share. It is further averred that complainant is having his loan account no. 50200026688134 with op no.2 bank and has taken loan from op no.2 after mortgaging his land alongwith other co-sharers. That as per scheme of the Central Government namely Prime Minister Fasal Beema Yojna, the cotton crop of kharif, 2018 sown in the above said land of complainant was insured with op no.1 and accordingly amount of Rs.9620/- was deducted from the account of complainant and was transferred to the account of op no.1 against the insurance of crop. It is further averred that cotton crop of complainant was totally damaged due to natural reason and resultantly he could not get any amount from the cotton crop. That complainant has suffered loss of about Rs.60,000/- in one acre of land and has suffered total loss of crops to the tune of Rs.9,90,000/- and he is entitled to said amount from insurance company. That a survey was conducted by the Govt. officials as well as officials of op no.1 and damages to the crops were assessed by them and other co-sharers in the above said land have been paid amount of compensation but complainant has not received any claim amount. It is further averred that Sh. Gurmail Singh real brother and one of the co-sharers has been paid an amount of Rs.94,675/- by insurance company. That despite several requests and demands of complainant, the ops have now totally refused to admit the claim of complainant about a week back and have caused unnecessary harassment and mental agony. Hence, this complaint seeking insurance claim amount of Rs.9,90,000/- alongwith interest and also compensation for harassment and litigation expenses from ops.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement submitting therein that the risk of coverage of crop cannot be assumed and presumed and same will not commence merely on deduction of premium by the bank and if such an eventuality arises i.e. if there is any technical flaw, fault or mistake clerical or otherwise on the part of bank in uploading the entire data record by the bank or by the State agency or the premium amount has not been deposited with the company or the premium has been paid without uploading complete detail (data/ record of loanee as required according to guidelines), in that eventuality, insurance company cannot be held responsible or liable for making the payment of loss, if any suffered by such loanee/ farmer. However, in the present case as per confirmation from the record, account no. 50200026688134 belonging to complainant was not insured for the crop insurance during the period and for the crop referred and mentioned by complainant as per portal data and claim data checked by officials of company from the record. It is also submitted that answering op is not insurer for the alleged crop and no insurance premium has ever been remitted in the account of insurance company and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.2 also filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that an amount of Rs.9620/- was debited in the account of complainant on 26.09.2018 and same was transferred to the account of op no.1 for insurance of crop of complainant under PMFBY. The insurance company has not raised any objection and accepted the premium for insurance of crop of complainant. Hence, it is presumed that the crops of complainant have been fully insured, therefore, insurance company is liable to compensate the complainant regarding any loss caused to him. If insurance company has not insured the crops of complainant, then it was their duty to refund the amount of insurance premium and in case they have not refunded the premium, it means that they have accepted the premium and are liable to compensate the complainant. It is further submitted that after acceptance of premium, the matter of claim etc. is between the insurance company and the farmer. It is further submitted that insurance company has accepted the premium without any objection as per clause 19 (XXII) of Haryana Govt. notification dated 30.03.2018 and has never refunded the same. Remaining contents of complaint of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 made.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and copies of documents i.e. statement of account of his brother Gurmail Singh Ex.C2, jamabandis for the year 2017-2018 Ex.C3, Ex.C4, his statement of account Ex.C5 and detail of complainant provided by bnak Ex.C6.
6. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Puja Incharge Legal Hub as Ex.R1 and copies of documents i.e. operational guidelines of PMFBY Ex.R2 and minutes of fourth meeting Ex.R3. Op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Saurabh Mehta, Assistant Manager & Principal Officer as Ex.R4 and statement of account Ex.R5.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
8. The complainant in order to prove loss of cotton crop of kharif, 2018 in above said three villages i.e. Chakerian, Kalanwali and Salam khera Tehsil and District Sirsa during the course of arguments has placed on file a copy of letter/ report of Deputy Director Agriculture department, Sirsa dated 07.11.2022 and from this said letter/ report it is evident that complainant has sought report about average yields of cotton crop of villages Chakerian, Kalanwali and Salam Khera of kharif, 2018 season and as such it has been reported by Deputy Director of Agriculture department, Sirsa that the average yield of cotton crop of Kharif, 2018 in village Chakkerian was 320.03 Kgs. per hectare, average yield of village Kalanwali was 341.801 Kgs. per hectare and average yield of village Salamkhera was 931 Kgs. per hectare. But however, from the said report, it is not evident that actually complainant suffered loss of his cotton crop in these three villages because it is no where reported that above said yields was less because for assessment of loss as per operational guidelines of PMFBY, the average yield of villages are compared to threshold yield of block of the villages and average yield of villages should be less than threshold yield and if so then only it is found that there is loss of yield. But however, in this case complainant has sought report about average yields of his villages and has not sought report about threshold yields of block of said villages and therefore, it cannot be said and concluded that actually there was loss of cotton crop in his above said three villages in kharif, 2018. Though complainant has averred that his real brother Gurmail Singh who is also a co-sharer has received an amount of Rs.94,675/- for the loss of his crop of kharif, 2018 and has also placed on file his statement of account as Ex.C2 from which it is evident that said Gurmail Singh received an amount of Rs.94675.62 from the loss of his cotton crop of kharif, 2018 but however, it is not proved on record that for how much of agricultural land and for which of village said Gurmail Singh has received said claim amount. The complainant has not placed on file any affidavit of his brother Gurmail Singh to prove the fact that on how much land he has sown cotton crop and on what rate he has been paid amount of compensation. Although complainant claims that he is having 16 acres of land in above said three villages, but however, complainant has only placed on file jamabandi of two villages i.e. Kalanwali and Chakerian and has not placed on file any jamabandi regarding his land in village Salamkhera. The complainant has also not placed on record any khasra girdawari to establish that he has sown cotton crop over how much area in three villages where he is having his land. Moreover, complainant has not placed on record any report of threshold yield of block of above said three villages and thus complainant has failed to establish on record whether he has sown cotton crop over his entire land and any loss has been caused to his crop in three villages. Even it is not proved by complainant that his brother Gurmail Singh is also having equal land as that of complainant and that he is also having his agricultural land in all the above said three villages and therefore, complainant cannot be given any claim on the basis of amount received by his brother. Further more, complainant is seeking insurance claim amount of Rs.9,90,000/- for the damage of his cotton crop in 16 ½ acres of land at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per acre and has asserted that his brother has received claim amount of Rs.94,675/- and as such it is not possible to ascertain and calculate loss of complainant on the basis of amount received by his brother in absence of any authentic record that on how much land he has sown cotton crop and on how much land his brother has sown cotton crop. So, in absence of above said authentic record, the complainant is not found entitled to any compensation from any of the ops and complaint is not maintainable.
9. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced : Member Member President,
Dated: 27.09.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
